Theor Soc DOI 10.

1007/s11186-012-9165-9

Carceral politics as gender justice? The traffic in women and neoliberal circuits of crime, sex, and rights
Elizabeth Bernstein

# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract This article draws upon recent works in sociology, jurisprudence, and feminist theory in order to assess the ways in which feminism, and sex and gender more generally, have become intricately interwoven with punitive agendas in contemporary US politics. Melding existing theoretical discussions of penal trends with insights drawn from my own ethnographic research on the contemporary anti-trafficking movement in the United Statesthe most recent domain of feminist activism in which a crime frame has prevailed against competing models of social justiceI elaborate upon the ways that neoliberalism and the politics of sex and gender have intertwined to produce a carceral turn in feminist advocacy movements previously organized around struggles for economic justice and liberation. Taking the anti-trafficking movement as a case study, I further demonstrate how human rights discourse has become a key vehicle both for the transnationalization of carceral politics and for the reincorporation of these policies into the domestic terrain in a benevolent, feminist guise. I conclude by urging greater and more nuanced attention to the operations of gender and sexual politics within mainstream analyses of contemporary modes of punishment, as well as a careful consideration of the neoliberal carceral state within feminist discussions of gender, sexuality, and the law. Keywords Feminism . Law . Politics . Transnationalism . Human rights

E. Bernstein (*) Department of Sociology, Barnard College, Columbia University, 3009 Broadway, New York, NY 10027, USA e-mail: Eb2032@columbia.edu

Theor Soc

What do we want? A strong trafficking law! When do we want it? Now! Call and response cry at National Organization for Women rally for New York State Trafficking law which would increase criminal penalties against prostitutes customers, New York City, February 1, 2007 Trafficking is not a poverty issue. Its a law enforcement issue. Gary Haugen, Director of the International Justice Mission (quoted in Landesman 2004: 30) When we govern through crime, we make crime and the forms of knowledge historically associated with itcriminal law, popular crime narrative, and criminologyavailable outside their limited original subject domains as powerful tools with which to interpret and frame all forms of social action as a problem of governance. Jonathan Simon, Governing Through Crime, 2007: 17 In recent years, a diverse array of social theorists has endeavored to explain the rise of mass incarceration in the United States (and, to a lesser extent, Western Europe) since the 1970s, linking contemporary carceral strategies of social governance to the spread of neoliberal economic agendas, to late modern cultures of control, to new modes of racial domination, and to the emergence of new political paradigms of governing though crime.1 In their groundbreaking 1992 article, The New Penology, law and society scholars Malcolm Feeley and Jonathan Simon (1992) first identified the series of interrelated shifts in penal ideology that began to transpire in the 1970s and 1980s, noting in particular the increased social reliance upon the imprisonment of entire populations deemed dangerous, as opposed to the apprehension and rehabilitation of particular individuals. Since that time, successive waves of scholars have sought to understand the broader significance of mass incarceration as a strategy of social control in light of Michel Foucaults earlier prediction that the modernist institution of the penitentiary would likely give way to more diffuse modes of governance (Foucault 1979). Whatever explanations they have offered for the surprising arc that modes of punishment have taken, most theorists have tended to agree with Foucaults more general assertion that the study of penal policy is of paramount significance to an understanding of the organization of power more generally, and must therefore move from the margins to the center of contemporary social theory. Concurring with this assessment, numerous feminist theorists have begun to trace a parallel history of the evolution of punishment, one that foregrounds the role played by sex and gender in processes of penal transformation. They have described the social implications of rapidly accelerating incarceration rates of female offenders (Sudbury 2005; Schaffner 2005; Haney 2004) as well as the control over womens lives and bodies that is increasingly exercised at a cultural level through a gendered
1

See, for example, Wacquant (2009a, b), Garland (2001a), Sudbury (2005), and Simon (2007). Garland excepted, most theorists begin from the premise that the incarceration rate has augmented dramatically while crime and victimization rates have declined. For a powerful articulation of these disparate trends, see Zimring (2007).

Theor Soc

and ubiquitous fear of crime (Madriz 1997; Wood 2005).2 Intriguingly, they have also explored the surprising ways that feminist activism itselfespecially in its hegemonic, US guisehas often served to facilitate, rather than to counter, the carcerally controlling arm of the neoliberal state. Scholars of domestic violence and rape, for example, have traced the rise of carceral politics within second wave feminism (Gottschalk 2006; Bumiller 2008; Coker 2001; Guber 2007; Halley 2008a; Halley 2008b), describing the ways in which feminist campaigns against sexual violence have not only been coopted by, but in fact been integral ingredients to the evolution of criminal justice as an apparatus of control. This article draws upon recent works in sociology, jurisprudence, and feminist theory in order to assess the ways in which feminism, and sex and gender more generally, have become intricately interwoven with punitive agendas in contemporary US (and by extension, global) politics. Melding existing theoretical discussions of penal trends with insights drawn from my own ethnographic research on the contemporary anti-trafficking movement in the United Statesthe most recent domain of feminist activism in which a crime frame has prevailed against competing models of social justiceI elaborate upon the ways that neoliberalism and the politics of sex and gender have intertwined to produce a carceral turn in advocacy movements that were previously organized around struggles for economic justice and personal liberation. Taking the anti-trafficking movement as a case study, I further demonstrate how human rights discourse has become a key vehicle both for the transnationalization of carceral politics and for folding back these policies into the domestic terrain in a benevolent, feminist guise. The discussion of carceral feminism that I present below is in no way intended to suggest that all existing feminismsmuch less, feministsare committed to a carceral agenda. For example, even within the mainstream of contemporary US feminism, a liberationist vision still prevails around issues such as reproductive rights, the flagship issue of the liberal-left end of the political spectrum.3 Around questions of sexual violence, however, including but not limited to the issue of human trafficking, a carceral agenda has indisputably prevailed. As the cultural theorist Roger Lancaster has observed in his recent book, Sex Panic and the Punitive State, since the 1960s, feminists and other liberals have steadily moved rightward on questions of punitiveness and criminal justice, particularly around issues of sex (Lancaster 2011, p. 211). The analysis that follows derives from a review of the sociological and feminist literatures on sex, gender, and carcerality as well as my own multi-sited ethnographic research at state- and activist-sponsored policy meetings, conferences, and strategy sessions. Between 2005 and 2009, I attended 72 events with an ideologically diverse sample of both secular feminist and evangelical Christian anti-trafficking activists in Washington DC and New York and conducted 28 in-depth, face-to-face interviews with movement leaders. While my focus in this essay is primarily upon the secular feminist groups that have been most influential in recasting sexual commerce in terms of the traffic in women, the analysis presented also draws from my longstanding scholarly and political engagement with sex worker activists who reject the
2 Women, especially non-white women and women from the Global South, are the fastest growing segment of the incarcerated population, typically for drug offenses (Haney 2004; Sudbury 2005; Bohrman and Murakawa 2005). 3 Although as commentators such as Saletan (2003) have argued, even here a formerly ample political agenda around reproductive freedoms has shifted right by being scaled back and privatized.

Theor Soc

trafficking frame and who address issues of migrant sexual labor under different political rubrics (see e.g., Agustn 2007; Ahmad 2005; Jagori 2005).4 Finally, my argument is informed by a decade of prior ethnographic investigation that I conducted with a broad sample of sex-workers, clients, and state agents throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s (Bernstein 2007b), which demonstrated that the rubric of trafficking is inadequate to describe sex workers highly diverse experiences of work and exploitation, a finding consistent with a growing body of social scientific inquiry (see, e.g., Brennan 2004; Kempadoo 2005a; and Cheng 2010). In the sections of this essay that follow, I first trace the broad connections between carceral politics and neoliberalism that have been articulated in several influential texts in recent sociological and jurisprudential theory. Next, I pull out the undertheorized gender and sexuality dimensions of these arguments through discussions of the contributions of a new wave of feminist socio-legal scholars and of my own ethnographic work on the contemporary anti-trafficking movement in the United States, tracing the emergence of what I term carceral feminisma cultural and political formation in which previous generations justice and liberation struggles are recast in carceral terms.5 I conclude by urging more nuanced attention to the operations of gender and sexual politics within prevailing theorizations of contemporary modes of punishment, as well as a more careful consideration of the neoliberal carceral state within feminist discussions of gender, sexuality, and the law.

Carceral politics as neoliberal governance: a theoretical overview Although there have been numerous works across the spectrum of the social sciences that have situated recent transformations in criminal justice in terms of the broader social significance of these trends, for purposes of my discussion in this article I begin by considering three highly influential texts that have emerged within contemporary social theory to interpret the late twentieth century carceral turn in US and Western European politics: David Garlands The Culture of Control (2001a), Loc Wacquants Punishing the Poor (2009b), and Jonathan Simons Governing Through Crime (2007). While other commentators have focused primarily upon the political and social consequences of mass imprisonment (Western 2006; Manza and Uggen 2006; Garland 2001b), on mass incarceration as a project of racial domination (Peterson, Krivo and Hagan 2006; Davis 2003; Tonry 1995), or upon articulating and advancing policy alternatives (see, e.g., Jacobson 2005; Petersilia 1998; Davis and Rodriguez 2000), I have chosen to focus upon the three aforementioned volumes because each one aspires to a broad theorization of the relationship between contemporary modes of punishment and more general trends within late-capitalist culture and political economyincluding those that pertain to gender and sexuality. David Garlands 2001 volume, The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society, still figures amongst the most ambitious and influential works in this vein in its bold assertion that the pattern of social, economic, and cultural
4

For a fuller discussion of evangelical Christian anti-trafficking advocacy, see Bernstein (2007a); Bernstein (2010); Chuang (2010); and Weitzer (2008). 5 For previous discussions of this concept, see Bernstein (2007a) and Bernstein (2010).

Theor Soc

relations that emerged in America, Britain, and elsewhere during the last three decades of the twentieth century ushered in a cluster of risks, insecurities, and control problems that have played a crucial role in shaping our changing response to crime (p. viii). Taking law, discourse, and policy together as his multi-faceted object of analysis, amongst Garlands key contributions is to catalogue exhaustively the emergence of similar trends within two distinct national contexts, the US and the UK, challenging prevailing assumptions of American exceptionalism and illuminating shared, underlying patterns of structural transformation. According to Garland, an array of social dislocations common to late modernity has contributed to heightened disorder and to crime, as well as to a stark reorientation in penal trends away from social remedies and towards politically conservative versions of expressive justice. In the ascendant worldview that characterizes this trend, crime is not regarded as a problem of economic deprivation but rather of inadequate social controls, in which human beings are naturally inclined to commit crimes unless inhibited from doing so by social authorities. It is this shared, conservative understanding of the root causes of crime that has inclined politicians and publics towards a revival in punitive sanctions such as the death penalty, as well as towards forms of expressive justice like the public naming and shaming campaigns that currently circulate, in particular, around sex crimes (p. 9). Garlands discussion grants special attention to the professional middle classes who have abandoned their prior allegiance to rehabilitative penal welfarism, noting that those who were formerly its staunchest advocates have done little to oppose the contemporary drift towards punitive policies. Reconfigured norms of gender and sexuality are understood by Garland to play a significant role in this shift, including the privatization of middle class family life and the entry of middle class women into the domain of the paid workforce. These changes have not only produced a new, objective vulnerability to crime, in Garlands view (with empty and isolated homes producing increased opportunities for crimes to occur), but also a sense of middle class precariousness, ontological insecurity, and a desire for compensatory forms of social control (p. 155). Although Garlands claims here are contentious ones (about which I have more to say below), his analysis usefully points towards the cultural underpinnings of punitive politics and a widening embrace of the carceral worldview, particularly amongst the affluent middle classes. While seeking to explain a similar set of trends within contemporary culture and in emergent paradigms of criminal justice, Loc Wacquants Punishing the Poor (2007b) makes a more pointed causal argument about the political roots of these recent widesweeping transformations. According to Wacquant, what underpins contemporary trends in punishment and incarceration is not the host of cultural attributes that Garland associates with late modernity, but rather neoliberalism as a specific political and economic strategy in which the carceral state supplants previous regimes that were organized around the provision of material welfare. For Wacquant, neoliberalism does not represent a shrinking state apparatus as is often assumed, but rather a shift in the predominant form and functions of the state in which new penal policies are a core feature. Because neoliberal economic strategies redirect public moneys away from the provision of goods and services, they in fact require an enhanced penal apparatus to contain newly disenfranchised populations. It is for this reason, Wacquant argues, that wherever neoliberalism reigns ascendant, carceral politics will

Theor Soc

too, an analysis that helps to explain the rise of carceral politics throughout much of Europe as well as in the United States.6 Wacquant maintains that this is a shift with broad social implications that extend far beyond the economic, with the gendered nature of the transition from one state form to another constituting a key component of his argument. Neoliberalism, in his view, can best be described as a remasculinization of the state in which its soft social bosom is transformed into a hard penal fist, one that dictates that poor women transition from welfare to workfare while their male counterparts are relocated from ghetto to prison. In addition to accounting for the divergent fates of differently raced, classed, and gendered bodies under conditions of neoliberalism, Wacquant also considers the operations of gender in symbolic as well as material ways. For Wacquant, the discursive production of the sex offender in contemporary politics and culturea singularly demonic figure whose threat to ideals of familial domesticity plays a critical role in legitimating the new penal orderexemplifies the former, in addition to the productive aspects of contemporary crime discourse more generally. As Wacquant argues, noting how the specter of the sexual predator successfully relocates sexual menace outside the confines of the nuclear family, The hyperbolic execration of the stranger pedophile on the public stage serves to symbolically purify the family and reassert its established role as a haven against insecurity even as accelerating neoliberal trends in the culture and economy undermine it (p. 235). In a full chapter devoted to the symbolic efficacy of sex crimes, Wacquant seeks to demonstrate how the moral abjectness of the sex predator provides an urgent and perpetually refreshed motive for the turn to fierce neutralization and vengeful retribution that has characterized U.S. penal policy since the late 1970s (p. 214). Whereas both Garlands and Wacquants explanatory models highlight the relationship between neoliberal economic policies, the increased social disenfranshisement of the poor, and rising rates of incarceration, Jonathan Simons theorization of contemporary crime policies highlights the impact of such policies upon white middle class lives that are themselves increasingly sequestered within fortress-like gated communities and SUVS that resemble armored Humvees. Simon emphasizes the structural similarities that have emerged across boundaries of race, class, and ethnicity to justify carceral strategies of social control, whether that confinement occurs within the walls of ones own suburban home or through literal imprisonment. In this view, mass incarceration is revealed to be not so much a new social strategy for the domination of African Americans or the disciplining of the labor force (which should be regarded as effects, rather than causes, of contemporary crime policies) but rather as a policy solution to the political dilemmas of governing through crime (p. 159). For Simon, it is the emergence of governing through crime as a political strategy that is of primary importance for social theorists to consider; the building of prisons, as well as the procurement of particular bodies to fill them, are but secondary and derivative phenomena.

While Wacquants theoretical modeling of the relationship between neoliberalism and the punitive state has been amply debated (see, e.g., Campbell 2011; Mayer 2011; Lancaster 2011), I am less interested in critiquing his theory for its economic determinacy than in exploring the connections Wacquant posits among neoliberalism, carcerality, sex, and gender.

Theor Soc

Like Wacquant, Simon emphasizes the symbolic and productive (rather than simply repressive) dimensions of contemporary crime control policy, and disputes David Garlands assertion that rising incarceration rates are due to an actual acceleration in crime. Yet in contrast to Wacquant, Simon maintains that crime and governance are not primarily about the control and domination of a racialized underclass. Instead, challenging views of power that extend in clear, straightforward lines from the social center out to the periphery (p. 18), Simon argues that new versions of liberal, middle class freedom are secured not against but precisely through the domain of contemporary penal policy. As Simon notes, one important vehicle of middle class governing through crime has been the rise of the paradigmatic victim subject. Highlighting the growing political centrality of the contemporary victims rights movement, Simon argues that the crime victim has supplanted the rights-bearing citizen as the idealized legal subject of our time. Finally, Simon observes that feminism has itself played an active role in advancing the new tough-on-crime frame, particularly around the issues of rape and domestic violence. In this regard, he embraces legal theorist Ada Gruber s insight that the raped woman as crime victim has emerged as the idealized political subject of secondwave feminism (p. 108). Following Gruber and other feminist critics, Simon notes how the feminist anti-rape and domestic violence movements, which were previously oriented towards grassroots and social service remedies, have increasingly turned to the terrain of criminal justice (as emblematized by the passage of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act) to pursue their political goals. Although Simons analysis is a provocative one in its attunement to the interplay between contemporary gender and carceral politics, his simultaneous implication that carceral strategies are a reaction to second-wave feminist social transformations (a perspective that is shared by Garland and Wacquant), and something that feminists have themselves actively fought for, raises a number of intriguing questions. Why, in both Simons and Garlands interpretive frames, would feminists respond in reactionary ways to the very social changes that their own activism had wrought? And why, viewed through Wacquants theoretical lens, would feminists themselves be advocating for a shift from the soft maternal bosom to the masculinized penal state? What, in other words, is feminists own stake in the sexual and carceral politics of neoliberalism? Although Simon, Garland, and Wacquant rightly identify gender and sexuality as important galvanizing factors in the changing modes of governance that they describe, they fail to theorize their operations in systematic or sufficiently nuanced ways. Despite the varying perspectives these theorists offer, in all three texts the advent of the remasculinized penal state is rendered as a neoliberal reaction to a vague set of social anxieties wrought by new economic conditions as well as by feminism, a perspective that dovetails with the authors tangible nostalgia for the sets of gendered social and economic relations that characterized a prior era of modernindustrial capitalism. Although each of the three theorists under consideration observes that contemporary carceral politics are enabled through the specter of sexualized violence (whether or not they grant feminists a pivotal role in the construction of this framework), they neglect to explain why the threat of sexual violence is a uniquely effective cultural vehicle for ushering in this transition. Despite the vast theoretical contributions that these theorists make in foregrounding the role of

Theor Soc

carceral politics in neoliberal reconfigurations of state power, and the authors frank acknowledgment that new configurations of sex and gender are also integral to these transitions, there is still much to be explained about how and why contemporary sexual and political-economic transformations intersect. To fill in the blanks that their work has left vacant, we need to delve more deeply into the intersections of neoliberalism, the carceral state, and the politics of sex and gender. Why have carceral feminist frameworks gained prominence while previous welfarist and liberationist feminist visions have declined? How do feminist versions of sexual and carceral politics get conjoined to drown out other social visions? To unravel these dilemmas, I turn now to an emergent body of scholarship on the carceral turn in second wave feminism as well as to my own ethnographic research on contemporary campaigns against the traffic in womenthe most recent domain of feminist activism in which a crime frame has gained rapid ascendance, both within the United States and transnationally.

Carceral feminism confronts the traffic in women On a cold and windy February afternoon, I approach the fifth in a series of lunchtime rallies on behalf of a new New York State law that would stiffen the potential criminal penalties against men who are convicted of patronizing a prostitute, from 90 days to a year in prison.7 When I arrive at Foley Square, I encounter a group of fifty or so women (mostly White or Asian, and all conspicuously middle class as indicated by their stylish attire and educated patterns of speech) as well as a gathering pool of journalists and onlookers. Present too are several influential City and State-level political figures who have been invited by the organizers to speak. Women from the rallys two sponsoring feminist organizations (NOW-NYC and Equality Now) as well as a smattering of other groups are gathered on the steps behind the speakers, holding up signs from their respective organizations and handing out press packets. Periodically, they coax the rest of the crowd to join together in a chant: What do we want? A strong trafficking law! When do we want it? Now! Or, Elliot Spitzer, take the lead! A strong trafficking bill is what we need!8 In their depictions of the sex industry, all of the speakers at the rally deploy the new anti-trafficking buzzwords (victim, predator, perpetrator, exploiter), along with stock anecdotes of innocent women having their papers confiscated, being forced to sell their bodies, and being trapped and tricked. The narratives of womens victimization are coupled with an insistence upon the need to focus on demand and to pursue aggressively the perpetrators of sexual violence. Criminal law is rendered as a surprisingly powerful and effective deterrent to mens bad behavior: We need to have laws that will make men think twice about entering the
The bill, New York SB 5902, passed with broad support from New York feminist organizations on June 6, 2007. 8 Spitzer was ironically a strong ally of the New York feminist movement before resigning from office on March 13, 2008 for patronizing a prostitute (Powell and Confessore 2008).
7

Theor Soc

commercial sexual exploitation business, one passionate City Council member explains. The final speaker at the event is Angela Lee from the New York Asian Womens Center. Fashionable and fortyish, dressed in a black leather jacket and fitted slacks, she makes no mention of the role played by global poverty in the dynamics of trafficking or prostitution, instead framing the issue in terms of the sexual integrity of families. This is a family issue, she declares outright, especially as Chinese New Year approaches and there are so many victims families who wont be able to celebrate.9 Lee goes on to link the dangers faced by trafficking victims to New Yorks States lack of success thus far in imposing a law that would provide severe enough criminal penalties for traffickers and pimps. She concludes her speech with the emotional declaration that We need to punish the traffickers and set the victims free! From my fieldnotes, February 2007, New York City Although a decade of feminist research and activism has addressed the role of the neoliberal state in criminalizing the survival strategies of poor women, and of poor women of color in particular (see, e.g., Davis and Shaylor (2001); Davis (2003); Schaffner (2005); Sudbury (2005); Haney (2010)), the significance of feminisms own widening embrace of the neoliberal carceral state has only begun to come into focus. Two recent genealogies of second wave feminism by political theorists Marie Gottschalk (2006) and Kristin Bumiller (2007) have sought to shed light upon this trajectory, providing important elaboration and grounding for Jonathan Simons observation that feminismand in particular, recent feminist activism around questions of sexual violencehas been a crucial enabler of the late-capitalist carceral turn. The contemporary womens movement in the United States helped facilitate the carceral state, explains Gottschalk, noting that some of the very same historical and institutional factors that made the US womens movement relatively successful in gaining public acceptance (including its firm foothold in elite politics, the absence of competing Marxist currents, and a strong national tradition of political liberalism) were important building blocks for the carceral state that emerged simultaneously in the 1970s (p. 115). Arguing that the neoliberal carceral imperative has had a devastating impact upon the ways that feminist engagement with questions of sexual violence have come to be framed, Bumiller (2008) suggests that the reciprocal is also true: once feminism became fatally inflected by neoliberal strategies of social control, it could serve as an effective inspiration for broader campaigns for criminalization (such as the war on drugs). While Gottschalk and Bumiller single out US feminism as an exceptional case, scholars such as Ticktin (2008), Kempadoo (2005b), and Kulick (2003) have pointed to similar trends within an array of different national contexts. Writing about the confluence of French feminism and anti-immigrant sentiment, for example, Miriam Ticktin notes that contemporary feminist concern with issues of sexual violence is often recognized only through the framework of racial, cultural, and religious
9 Such claims disregard a body of social scientific evidence that has found that women and girls often enter into prostitution at their families behest, so as to provide better for their parents and children; see, e.g., Montgomery (2001); Agustn (2007); Bernstein (2007b).

Theor Soc

difference (2008, p. 865). As Ticktin demonstrates, by fighting sexism with racism, feminist campaigns around sexual violence have become increasingly powerful accessories to French state interests in border control and policing (Razack 1995, p. 72, quoted in Ticktin 2008, p. 865). Another recent domain of feminist activism in which the carceral turn has become apparent has been in gathering political and cultural attention to the traffic in women. Until the mid-1990s, an incipient sex workers rights movement had sought to decriminalize and to destigmatize womens sexual labor and to gain rights and protections for sex workers from within a labor frame, but in more recent years these efforts have been undercut by a bevy of new federal, state, and international laws that equate all prostitution with the crime of human trafficking and which impose harsh criminal penalties against traffickers and prostitutes customers. As the legal scholar Alice Miller has noted, in the late 1990s, this pivot first occurred within the context of transnational feminist organizing at the United Nations, an attention that brought with it a focus on crime control methods and rescue, to the detriment of the promotion of the full range of rights needed by trafficked persons. According to Miller, the 2000 UN Protocol Against Trafficking in Persons created international law in the context of crime controlnot human rights or labor protections (Miller 2004, p. 32). Within the United States, although some anti-trafficking activists continue to the pay lip service to the goal of decriminalizing and securing economic rights for sex workers, the overwhelming thrust of current feminist attention has been similarly oriented towards wideningrather than eliminatingthe sphere of criminal justice intervention in the sex industry. Although trafficking as defined in international protocols and in current federal law could conceivably encompass sweatshop labor, agricultural work, or unscrupulous labor practices on military bases in Iraq, it has been the far less common instances of sexually trafficked women and girls that have stimulated the most concern by feminist activists, the state, and the press. In the 2000 UN Protocol Against Trafficking in Persons, for example, trafficking is understood to include the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2000). Yet as Miller points out about the Protocol definition, prostitution occupies an asymmetrical place in the list as distinct from the specific criteria for force or coercion that qualify other forms of labor. Miller shows how in this context, two intertwined themes emerge: the site of sexual exchange as a priority for state intervention and a criminal response as the main response to exploitation (2004, p. 32). Feminist anti-trafficking activists have themselves acknowledged that a focus upon sexual violation, rather than the structural conditions of exploited labor more generallyin addition to their strategic partnership on this issue with evangelical Christianshas been crucial to transforming it into a legal framework with powerful material and symbolic effects (Bernstein 2007a; Bernstein 2010; Chuang 2010). At events such as the February 2007 anti-trafficking rally that I attended at Foley Square in New York City, the political efficacy of conjoining the threat of sexual violence with calls for an expanded carceral state apparatus was apparent, with political leaders and feminist activists in strong agreement that human trafficking was primarily an issue of family values, sexual predation, and victimized women and children. Commentators who have critically assessed the rise of the anti-trafficking movement in the United States have often attributed its ascendance to what they perceive to

Theor Soc

be the moralistic sexual politics of its two principal groups, radical feminists and conservative Christians.10 They have argued that both groups harbor archaic and violated visions of femininity and sexuality (Saunders 2005), a sexual ideology that is pro-marriage and pro-family (Weitzer 2007), and that they share an antipathy towards nonprocreative sex (Soderlund 2005). As the political scientists Dorothy Buss and Didi Herman (2003) have further demonstrated, by the late-1990s, feminists and evangelicals were well-poised to forge transnational alliances around this issue, as a greater reliance upon NGOs by the UN encouraged many newly formed evangelical NGOs to enter into the international political fray. Other critics have pointed to the strong parallels between feminist uprisings around sex trafficking in the current moment and those that surrounded the White Slavery scare in the postbellum years of the last century, which similarly derived their impact through tropes of violated femininity, shattered innocence, and the victimization of womenandchildren (see e.g., Kempadoo 2005a, b; Foerster 2009; Agustn 2007; Doezema 2010). Commentators such as Roger Lancaster (2011) and Carole Vance (2010), meanwhile, have situated contemporary mobilizations again trafficking in terms of successive waves of sex panics that have occurred at periodic intervals in the United States through the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The marked historical resonance between the current US anti-trafficking campaign and the Meese Commission anti-pornography hearings that took place during the 1980s (in which conservative Christians and a segment of the feminist movement once gain joined forces for the sake of sexual reform) has also been explored (Weitzer 2007; see also Vance 1997; Duggan and Hunter 1995). Although ample critical attention has been devoted to the conservative legacy of feminist sexual politics that underpins contemporary anti-trafficking campaigns, most accounts have stopped short of looking at another sociologically significant linkage between the feminist and evangelical Christian activist constituencies that has catapulted the traffic in women to its current position of political and cultural prominence specifically, a carceral and far from historically inevitable paradigm of state engagement, both domestically and internationally. Left unaddressed by most commentators are the questions of why a vision of sexual politics that is premised upon a version of (feminist) family values should reign ascendant at this particular historical moment, or how these values might couple with broader sets of political and economic interests. Whereas theorists such as Garland, Wacquant, and Simon astutely describe the rise of the carceral state but provide only a partial sketch of the dynamics of sex and gender that have facilitated its emergence, an equally significant deficit resides in analyses of sexual politics that fail to consider adequately feminist activists newfound and nearly ubiquitous insistence upon carceral versions of gender justice.11 In contemporary anti-trafficking campaigns as in neoliberal governance more generally, the left and right ends of the political spectrum are joined together in a particular, dense knot of sexual and carceral values. A consideration of the rise of carceral feminism alongside other dimensions of neoliberal governance will allow us to unravel this tangle of factors.

The term radical feminist may be largely a misnomer given a political trajectory that has carried many of the original activists associated with this point of view to prominent positions in national and international governance, including within the Bush White House (see Bernstein 2010). 11 In this regard, Lancaster (2011) constitutes an important exception.

10

Theor Soc

Neoliberalisms (feminist) family values In the 1970s our feminist goal was liberation: liberation from discrimination at work, liberation from sexual constraints, liberation from forced sex, forced pregnancy and forced domestic service. Our focus was less violence per se, than the function of violence in keeping us down. Feminist marches were not about punishing men or protecting women; if anything, we denounced .punishing women and protecting men. We were determined to occupy our cities, our jobs, our homes, our lives in courageous defiance of punitiveor protectivecurfews and controls. We knew our movement was transgressive and, thus, dangerous, but we had no illusion about the sanctity or security of home. Gail Pheterson, Tracing a Radical Feminist Vision From the 1970s to the Present (2008) As the feminist theorist Gail Pheterson has recently observed, a previously hegemonic feminist critique of family and home has receded at precisely the same time that the movements embrace of carceral politics has escalated, with a drift towards punitive or protective curfews and controls. Although this latter shift might be explained simply in terms of the new middle class punitiveness that David Garland has described, the mainstream feminist embrace of family values and its primary focus upon extrafamilial forms of sexual violence is sociologically significant in and of itself. Such a trend stands in marked contrast to the analyses offered by classic sociological works such as Kristin Lukers Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood (1985) and Arlene Steins The Stranger Next Door (2002), as well as to Thomas Franks celebrated journalistic account, Whats The Matter with Kansas? (2005), which posited diverse ways in which the right-wing adhesion to family values could be read as a class-based reaction to the hegemonic sexual cultures of elites. In these volumes, activists ideological commitments are underpinned by their material circumstances, with conservative investments in sexual politics attributed to the gendered class strategies of those the global economy has left behind. Yet as Garland, Wacquant, and Simon have all observed, and as my own research on the contemporary anti-trafficking movement demonstrates, neoliberal carceral politics and the conservative sexual politics that are their accompaniment are also increasingly situated within the liberal-leaning, professional middle classes. In a previous article (Bernstein 2010), I argued that in contemporary anti-trafficking campaigns, it is ironically secular feminists who are advocating for family values, together with a new-middle class contingent of evangelical Christians who are engaged in a sexually modernizing project that literally transports them to the furthest corners of the global sex industry. Two recent shifts in feminist and conservative Christian sexual politics have made their current alliance against sex trafficking possible: a secular feminist shift from a focus upon bad men inside the home (sexually abusive husbands and fathers) to sexual predators outside of it (traffickers, pimps, and clients), and the feminist-friendly shift of a new generation of evangelical Christians away from sexually improper women (as prior concerns with issues like abortion suggest) to a focus upon sexually improper men. For both constituencies, the masculinist institutions of big business, the state, and the police are reconfigured as allies and saviors, rather than the enemies of migrant sex workers, and the responsibility for trafficking is shifted from

Theor Soc

structural factors and dominant institutions onto individual (often racially coded) criminal men. To rework slightly Gayatri Spivaks famous formulation regarding the gendered logics of postcolonial politics, in contemporary anti-trafficking campaigns, it is white women who have joined forces with key sites of institutional power in order to save brown women from brown men (Spivak 1988). While secular feminists have no doubt also been drawn towards anti-trafficking advocacy by the opportunities that this work presents for professional advancement and travel (see, e.g., Halley 2006; Grewal 2005; Agustn 2007), important, too, is the potential that contemporary feminists perceive in this issue to symbolically enhance their own power in domestic sphere heterosexual relationshipsa power that the global sex industry is understood to erode. Seeing prostitutes shapes mens view of what sex is, who women are, and how they should be treated, remarked one white, middle-class activist at a recent anti-trafficking event that was sponsored by the feminist anti-trafficking NGO, the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW). The idea that you can contain the value system of prostitution, and it will only affect those women, or those women in that country, and that it wont spill over into society as a whole is an illusion, suggested another. As the British cultural theorist Jo Doezema has written in regard to western feminists wounded attachment to the third world prostitute, the injured body of the third world trafficking victim in international feminist debates around trafficking in women serves as a powerful metaphor for advancing certain feminist interests, which cannot be assumed to be those of third world sex workers themselves (2001, p. 16; see also Brown 1995). The link between global sex trafficking and the gendered power relations of heterosexual domesticity is also made explicit in a recent collection of essays published by a feminist anti-trafficking NGO entitled Pornography: Driving the Demand in International Sex Trafficking. In one essay, the activist Chyng Sun emphasizes the damage that commercialized sex does to private sphere, heterosexual relationships when it serves as the new standard for how all women should look, sound, and behave (2007, p. 245). In another recent feminist collection, Not for Sale, the author Kristen Anderberg (2004) issues a condemnation of the global sex industry after describing how watching pornographic videos with her male lover lead to debilitating body issues and to plummeting self esteem. In the same way that a set of material and symbolic interests in heterosexual marriage undergirded the sexually puritanical nineteenth-century feminist battles against White Slavery, abortion rights, and even birth control (see, e.g., Gordon 1982; Walkowitz 1982), so too do contemporary feminist activists harbor a set of investments in family values and home that are decipherable in terms of the global interconnections of late-capitalist consumer culture. While contemporary discussions of the impact of the sex industry on normative heterosexual relations have ample historical precedent, the expanding scope and reach of sexual commerce under conditions of globalization, or what one influential anti-trafficking activist has termed the prostitution of sexuality (Barry 1995), have served to rapidly accelerate feminist concerns. For contemporary anti-trafficking activists, one key ambition is to make the institution of heterosexual marriage more egalitarian and more secure by restoring an amative sexual ethic to sexual relations. Although anti-trafficking activists come from both heteronormative, liberal-feminist lineages as well as more radical lesbian-feminist traditions (as illustrated, for example, by the alliance between

Theor Soc

NOW-NYC and Equality Now at the 2007 rally), what binds the two groups to one another, as well as to their evangelical Christian counterparts, is their shared commitment to a relational, as opposed to a recreational sexual ethic (Bernstein 2007b). More pivotal than the heterosexual/lesbian-feminist divide of generations past (see, e.g., Bunch 1972; Morgan 1973; Echols 1989), the conviction that sexuality should be kept within the confines of the romantic couple serves to cement a political alliance between ideologically disparate constituencies. As one feminist activist explained to me in recounting the initial forging of the alliance between the divergent groups that constitute the anti-trafficking coalition, A whole consortium from the farthest left to the farthest right was in favor of making all prostitution trafficking. What was really interesting is the coalition of people a coalition that included Salvation Army and the lesbian-feminist Equality Now, and CATW up in New York and Michael Horowitz whos very conservative. Thats new politics. I had never before seen a group like that.12 From the perspective of anti-trafficking feminists, it is thus not the changing gender roles wrought by feminist social transformations that have created new social insecurities (contra Garland, Wacquant, and Simon), but rather the sexual revolutions of the 1960s and 1970s that have served to alter the balance of gendered power by creating extra-familial sexual temptations for men. The renowned anti-trafficking activist Donna Hughes thus attributes the existence of human trafficking not only to prostitution, but also to the advent of a culturally liberal and permissive attitude towards sex that generates mens demand for sexual services (May 2006).13 Another anti-trafficking activist that I interviewed about her engagement in the topic similarly sketched her perception of feminists sexual dilemma in broad strokes, explaining that through TV commercials, through billboards, through marketing, the sexuality continuously keeps increasing where there is no protection anymore over our physical bodies, there are no more parameters, everything is acceptable. A third feminist commentator who is active in contemporary anti-trafficking debates has expressly attributed the traffic in women to the mainstreaming of prostitution, pornography, and sexually explicit mass media (Clarke 2004). These activists are not mistaken in their identification of a new consumer-driven paradigm of sexuality that has co-emerged with other late-capitalist cultural transformations and that might best be defined as recreational, rather than relational in its underlying ethic. What is ironic and surprising is the extent to which feminist anti-trafficking activists have embraced a pro-familial strategy for battling this trend, one that is itself intricately interwoven with neoliberal commitments to capitalism and criminalization. Rather than regarding the heterosexual nuclear family as another institution of male domination to be abolished (and itself a key incarnation of the traffic in women14) contemporary anti-trafficking discourse situates the family as a privatized
12 Horowitz, who is employed by the neoconservative think tank, the Hudson Institute, was a pivotal figure in cementing the anti-trafficking coalition during the Bush presidency (see Hertzke 2004). 13 Hughes serves as the Elinor M. Carlson endowed Chair of Womens Studies at the University of Rhode Island and has issued multiple reports in national and international arena on the traffic in women. She is also a regular contributor to the conservative journal, The National Review. 14 In her classic essay on the Traffic in Women, the feminist anthropologist Gayle Rubin drew upon the works of Marx and Engels, Claude Lvi-Strauss, and Jacques Lacan (in addition to a wealth of crosscultural data) to argue that the linchpin of womens oppression resides in the social conventions of marriage and kinship (Rubin 1975).

Theor Soc

sphere of safety for women and children that the criminal justice system should be harnessed to protect. It was thus that one invited speaker at another CATW antitrafficking event, a young women who had previously worked in the sex industry and who therefore described herself as a survivor of sex trafficking, attributed this experience to a combination of no father figure and an abundance of sexualized mass media. Conversely, she signaled that she had successfully overcome her ordeal by pointing out that she was now married and working full time at a good paying, real job. In contrast to an earlier moment in radical-feminist sexual politics, one that sought to link the sexual exploitation of prostitution to questions of violence against women more generally, including within the home (see, e.g., Morgan 1970; Barry 1979; MacKinnon 1989), in contemporary anti-trafficking campaigns it is specifically non-familial forms of heterosexuality that have become the exclusive political targets. This commitment to the home as safe haven undergirds what the feminist theorist Inderpal Grewal has described as the gender of security in the early twenty-first century United States (2006). A gender-specific emblem of the sequestered middle class lives that theorists such as Jonathan Simon have also evoked, Grewal identifies the figure of the security mom as one who seeks to harness the power of a securitized state apparatus to protect herself and her children. Akin to Grewals analysis, my ethnographic observations with feminist anti-trafficking activists reveal a specifically gendered set of investments in the neoliberal carceral state, one that is intricately interwoven with activists own social locations as racially and class-privileged women. At the meetings with the anti-trafficking activists that I attended, the interlocking of multiple structures of privilege with a prosecutorial bent was manifest in various ways from the professional settings of the conferences (at the American Bar Association, at the headquarters of the New York County Lawyers Association, at assorted white shoe law firms) to the sets of interpersonal connections that activists drew upon in their strategizing sessions. Are there any women judges that are there for us? asked one activist at the Lawyers Association meeting. Are we on talking relations with the wife of the governor? queried another. The professional upper-middle class orientation of anti-trafficking activism that I observed in my research is also consistent with research on the class profiles of anti-prostitution activists in other national contexts (see, e.g., Ho 2005; Jeffrey 2002) and of contemporary transnational feminist activism more generally (Eisenstein 2009; Desai 2005). As members of the class fraction that is most likely to reap strong material and symbolic rewards from marriage, anti-trafficking activists are heavily invested in the maintenance and reproduction of this status and are ready to enlist the state apparatus on behalf of the gendered and sexual interests that are most pertinent to themselves: a version of feminist family values that is premised upon liberal understandings of formal equality between women and men, and the safe containment of sexuality within the pair-bonded couple.15 As with Grewals analysis of the security mom, these women utilize and promote the carceral state in order to securitize the sexual boundaries of home. The feminist embrace of carceral politics and the articulation of these politics through a pro-familialist ideal of gender and sexuality were evident at the meetings of
15 Demographic research has shown that whereas high educational attainment and the capacity for economic independence were once marital deterrents for women, highly educated white women are now the most likely group to be married (see, e.g., Martin 2006; Goldstein and Kenney 2001).

Theor Soc

the anti-trafficking caucuses of NOW-NYC and the AAUW that I attended between 2006 and 2008. At a November 2006 conference on Violence Against Women that was co-sponsored by the AAUW and other feminist organizations, several hundred professional women, predominantly white, spent the day discussing the necessity of abolishing prostitution for women's equality, while dozens of Black and Latina women dressed in catering uniforms circulated amongst them arranging tables and chairs and serving drinks. The keynote speaker was a lawyer from the feminist NGO, Equality Now, who took the podium after being very graciously introduced as a former prosecutor of sex crimes and a mother. Visibly pregnant with a prominent diamond ring on her left finger, this well-coiffed and well-dressed lawyer reminded her audience of the important deterrent effects of the criminal law, and conveyed the horrors of human trafficking as follows: Id like to tell you the story of Christina, who was a victim of human trafficking. She came here as a 19 or 20 year old woman in response to an ad for what she thought was a babysitting job. And when she arrived at JFK airport she was then informed that the babysitting job wasnt available anymore. Of course she was forced to work in a brothel. And she describes that experience with the same words that any of us would use to describe it. She describes the sex of prostitution as disgusting, as degradation, and profoundly traumatic to her. And what I want to talk to you about is some of the lasting effects are for her, after she escaped the experience. She is infertile. She can never have children. [From my fieldnotes, November 2006] Nearly identical narratives were presented at the multiple anti-trafficking conferences that I attended throughout the course of my fieldwork, the only significant alteration being the victims name.16 Yet there is much to unpack in this exposition of the harms of trafficking though the presentation of Christinas story, which in its sheer generality suggests that it is at least partially fictionalized and at best a strategically constructed composite case. Particularly notable are the moral and political legitimacy afforded to domestic care work as late-capitalist informal sector employment,17 the invocation of a single gendered (and uniformly negative) experience of the sex of prostitution,18 and the construal of reproductive failure as the worst possible harm that could result for female victims. While elements of this narrative undoubtedly can and do happen to real individuals, as a representation of human trafficking the scenario described was far from the most empirically prevalent case (Feingold 2005; Kempadoo 2005a; Bales 1999). Even more curiously, according to case files compiled from the United States Department of Justice, no trafficking
16 Other events at which strikingly similar stories were told include the CATWs End Demand conference at the U.N.s Commission on the Status of Women meetings on March 2, 2007, the CATW Abolishing Sexual Slavery from Stockholm to Hunts Point conference held at the New York City Bar Association on November 6, 2008, and the conference on Sex Trafficking and the New Abolitionists, held at the Brooklyn Museum on December 13, 2008. 17 Although by some estimates trafficking for domestic work has been found to be more prevalent than trafficking into the sex sector (see, e.g., Feingold 2005), the former is more compatible with professionalclass womens gendered interests in the home. 18 There is an abundance of critical feminist scholarship that demonstrates the contrary; see, e.g., Bernstein (2007b); Agustn (2007); Chapkis (1997); Brennan (2004).

Theor Soc

case matching this description has ever been prosecuted (US Department of Justice 2011). The lawyer s simultaneous commitments to the carceral state, the capitalist service sector, and the ideology of feminist family values perfectly paralleled the underlying neoliberal logic that united these realms, in which the social inequalities that globalization has wrought are legitimate so long as the sexual boundaries of middle-class family life can be maintained. At a discussion focused upon ending demand for sex trafficking at the Commission on the Status of Women meetings that I attended at the United Nations in March of 2007, the link between sexual and carceral politics was once again revealed. At this meeting dedicated to problematizing mens demand for the services of sex workers, the panelists used the occasion to directly showcase how the carceral state could be effectively harnessed to achieve amatively coupled and sexually egalitarian nuclear families. The opening speaker from the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW) explicitly hailed the five white, middle class men in the room as exemplars of a new model of enlightened masculinity and urged the audience members to to bring their husbands, sons, and brothers to future meetings. The model of prostitution and trafficking that the CATW panelists invoked bore little if any connection to structural or economic factors, rendering prostitution wholly attributable to the actions of bad men: husbands within the family who might appeal to the sexual services of women outside of it, or bad men outside the family (coded as non-white and foreign) who might entice women and girls within it to leave.19 Although the CATW regards itself as a progressive feminist organization, members displayed no hesitation in their appeals to a punitive state apparatus. As the panel chair repeatedly emphasized during her sharply condemnatory presentation about heterosexual mens purchase of sex, The only thing that prevents recurrence is fear of arrest. Although numerous studies have shown that the arrest of clients serves primarily to drive prostitution indoors rather than to eradicate it (OConnell Davidson 2003; Brock 1998; Bernstein 2007b), what was at stake for the CATW activists were the broader symbolic effects that a politics of criminalization could offernot simply in turning the figure of the sex predator into a grotesque parody, as Wacquant has arguedbut also for delegitimizing markets in female sexual labor and the commercialization of sexuality more generally. As I have argued elsewhere (Bernstein 2007b), the state is thus able to assume a feminist rationale for arresting those who stand in the way of neoliberal agendas of urban restructuring and the removal of race and class Others from public space. In my fieldwork with feminist activists, the utility of the carceral state for securitizing the middle class familyand more specifically, for domesticating heterosexual menwas also manifest in frequent appeals to the case of Sweden as an exemplar of enlightened anti-trafficking policy. The criminalization of male sex purchasers, a policy model first implemented in Sweden in 1998, is often referred to by transnational feminist activists as the Swedish Plan in order to convey its feminist origins and impact, since Sweden is considered by many to be the most gender-egalitarian country in the world. It was thus that at a subsequent CATW panel that I attended on
19 Agustn (2007) has described the anxieties that circulate around trafficking in terms of displaced concerns about women leaving home for sex. Here, I highlight feminists concerns about mens, and specifically husbands extra-domestic sexual pursuits.

Theor Soc

Abolishing Sex Slavery: From Stockholm to Hunts Point, the Swedish policy of criminalizing the clients of sex workers was endorsed by speakers who not only applauded Swedens reputation for gender equality, but who explicitly referenced the Swedish welfare states commitment to promoting men to be home with their children at a young age. Left unremarked upon in the transnational dissemination of this carceral strategy is that Sweden itself embraced it only after its hallmark welfare state (which earned it its feminist reputation in the first place) had been seriously weakened in the 1990s (Bernstein 2007b; Hobson 1999).20 In a related vein, feminist theorists of neoliberalism such as Lisa Duggan (2003) and Kate Bedford (2009) have pointed out the ways in which the ideology of family values becomes particularly critical when other possibilities for social relations are eclipsed. Marriage as an institution is grounded in the privatization of social reproduction, along with the care of human dependency needs, through personal responsibility exercised in the family and in civil societythus shifting costs from state agencies to individuals and households (Duggan 2003: p. 14). The demise of the welfare state and the ascendance of law and order politics, both premised upon the promotion of personal responsibility and the condemnation of public disorder, are thus directly correlated not just as institutional alternatives to managing the racialized poor (as Wacquant has suggested) but via the dense interrelations among neoliberalisms economic and (gendered) cultural projects (Duggan 2003). Whereas Wacquant identifies but does not explain the shift to the masculine penal state or the familialist sexual politics that are its accompaniment, Duggan and Bedford demonstrate that the rise of family values politics is necessary to fill in the caring gaps that the obliterated welfare state has left vacant. They demonstrate that the neoliberal state can be harnessed to notions of domesticating men that operate simultaneously at two different levels: men, particularly poor and working class men, are encouraged to do more care work within the home and to take on the burdens of social reproduction that arise when women themselves move into the sphere of paid work. At the same time, professional middle class men are encouraged to constrain their commercial consumption in ways that are compatible with heterosexual domesticity and amative love.

A neoliberal circuitry of crime, sex, and rights The above examples serve to illustrate how the rise of a carceral feminist framework is connected to the collapse of a social welfare state in more ways than oneboth as a new social strategy for regulating race and class others and as part of a neoliberal gender strategy that securitizes the family and lends moral primacy to marriage. Viewed as such, it becomes clear that as neoliberal economic policies extend their reach around the globe, they will serve to diffuse a new criminal justice-focused social agenda (as Wacquant has aptly demonstrated) in tandem with a new political paradigm of gender and sexuality that is premised upon the (feminist)
20 Components of the Swedish criminalization model have since been adopted in countries ranging from Norway and Iceland to South Korea, the Philippines, and Chile. Although the Swedish law specifically criminalizes only the customers of prostitutes (but not sex workers themselves), transnational feminist activists and nation-states that claim the Swedish mantle have used it to widen the sphere of criminalization to encompass both sex workers and their clients (Bernstein 2007b).

Theor Soc

family value of amative, sexually egalitarian couples. This new paradigm has been disseminated through such disparate means as stepped up laws and controls against sex offenders (including proposals for a new pan-European sex offender registry), the insertion of men into private-sphere caring labor via official World Bank development policy, and burgeoning international campaigns against the traffic in women.21 Indeed, one of the reasons that anti-trafficking campaigns have become such a galvanizing issue for feminists, evangelicals, and other activists is because the interlinked sexual, carceral, and economic commitments that they comprise can be harnessed to the now hegemonic internationalist discourse of womens human rights. As the political theorist Kristin Bumiller (2008) has observed, human rights conventions attempt to improve conditions for women by putting pressure on states to promote serious and effective enforcement of criminal laws against interpersonal violence (p. 136). With womens human rights understood as pertaining exclusively to questions of sexual violence and to bodily integrity (but not to the gendered dimensions of broader social, economic, and cultural issues), the human rights model in its global manifestation has become a highly effective means of disseminating feminist carceral politics on a global scale (see also Grewal 2006; Miller 2004). Within the context of campaigns to combat the global traffic in women, this efficacy has been manifest in the United Statess tier ranking and economic sanctioning of countries that fail to pass sufficiently punitive anti-prostitution laws, in the transnational activist push to criminalize male clients demand for sexual services, in the tightening of international borders as a means to protect potential trafficking victims, and in the implementation of new restrictions upon female migrants capacity to travel (Chuang 2010; Kempadoo 2005b; Ticktin 2008; Chapkis 2005). Feminist anti-trafficking activists have lobbied hard for all of these measures in addition to strongly endorsing the US governments anti-prostitution pledge, which stipulates that NGOs that do not explicitly take a stand in condemnation of prostitution will lose their capacity to receive US funding (Chuang 2010; Saunders 2005; NSWP 2006). Feminists have also offered their support for the vigilante brothel raids that evangelical Christian groups such as the International Justice Mission have conducted in countries such as India and Cambodia in partnership with the local police.22 Although Wacquant, Garland, and Simon neglect to identify the political efficacy of human rights discourse for extending the nationally rooted carceral agendas that they describe, as Bumiller (2008), Halley (2008), Grewal (2006) and other critical feminist scholars have observed, it has become an indispensable tool for spreading the increasingly mainstream paradigm of feminism-as-crime-control internationally. From the perspective of U.S.-based anti-trafficking advocates, the shift to the international human rights field has also been crucial in relocating a prior set of internecine political debates amongst feminists about the meaning of prostitution and pornography (one thath had divided the US feminist movement throughout the 1980s
On the spread of harsh criminal laws against sex offenders in Europe, see Sex laws: Unjust and Ineffective (2009). On the heteronormative underpinnings of World Bank development policy, see Bedford (2009). 22 The International Justice Mission is the largest evangelical Christian anti-trafficking organization in the United States, with upwards of eighty full-time paid staff members and operations in 14 countries. Additional discussion of the International Justice Mission is provided in Bernstein (2007a); Bernstein (2010); and Thrupkaew (2009).
21

Theor Soc

and early 1990s, and in which liberationist factions were emerging triumphant) to a humanitarian terrain in which the anti-prostitution constituency was more likely to prevail.23 As one of the founding members of a prominent feminist anti-trafficking NGO explained to me during an interview, framing the harms of prostitution and trafficking as politically neutral questions of humanitarian concern about third world women, rather than as issues that directly impacted the lives of Western feminists, was pivotal to waging the fight against commercial sexuality successfully: There was an earlier wave of consciousness about exploitation that took both pornography and prostitution almost together as a kind of commercial sexual exploitation of women. And they got battered down by ACLU types who were the same people who were also against prosecution of rape because it was discriminatory prosecution against people of color. It wasnt even just priorities. It was really just a basic understanding of human rights. After that [we] went underground and then trafficking brought these issues right back. (From my fieldnotes, December 3, 2008). Another human rights activist that I interviewed further observed that by the time of the 1995 Beijing World Conference on Women, the frameworks around both trafficking and prostitution had irrevocably shifted: Beijing is where trafficking as a labor issue was first transformed into a sexual violence and slavery issue. According to these activists, feminists who had participated in earlier waves of domestic struggle for the state curtailment of prostitution and pornography had initially been hampered by other liberal constituencies (including divergent feminist factions and the ACLU) who were opposed to the potentially discriminatory effects of a criminal justice frame. But by resituating their issues in terms of the traffic in women overseas and as a violation of international commitments to womens human rights, they were able to wage the same sexual battles unopposed. The most recent twist in the transnational feminist campaign against human trafficking has occurred with gathering attention to so-called domestic forms of sex trafficking. The 2005 reauthorization of the US Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPRA) established the crime of domestic trafficking on a moral and legal par with previous cross-border understandings of the crime (United States Department of State 2005). With the aim of shifting enforcement priorities towards street prostitution in urban areas, the TVPRA established $5,000,000 in federal grants to local law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute sex trafficking within the United States.24 Some commentators have speculated that the shift from an international to a domestic focus in US anti-trafficking policy has occurred because the US government has consistently failed to identify the overwhelming numbers of transborder victims that it previously claimed existed (see, e.g., Brennan 2008).25
On the feminist pornography debates of the 1980s and 1990s, see Vance (1993; 1997) and Duggan and Hunter (1995). 24 The 2000 Trafficking Victims Protection Act defines sex trafficking very broadly as the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act. (United States Department of State 2000) 25 Since the passage of the 2000 Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the government has downgraded its estimates of US transborder victims, from 50,000 to 14,50017,000 people per year (US Government Accountability Office 2006). In cases of domestic trafficking, the force requirement is waived if the women in question are underage.
23

Theor Soc

According to a US Department of Justice summation of 2,515 human trafficking investigations conducted between 2008 and 2010, of 389 confirmed incidents of trafficking, 85% were sex trafficking cases, 83% of victims were US citizens, and 62% of confirmed sex trafficking suspects were African American (while 25% of all suspects were Hispanic/Latino) (US Dept. of Justice 2011). The racial impact of antitrafficking laws is also heightened by the fact that young men who are convicted of pimping can now be given 99-year prison sentences as domestic sex traffickers (versus the prison sentences of several months that were previously typical), while migrant sex workers are themselves increasingly arrested and deported for the sake of their protection (Chapkis 2005; Bernstein 2007b; Urban Justice Center 2009). Both domestically and globally, US anti-trafficking policies have thus contributed to unprecedented police crackdowns upon people of color who are involved in the street-based sexual economy (including pimps, clients, and sex-workers alike) and they have facilitated a sharp reversal of the trend towards the increasing legitimacy of sexual labor that prevailed up until the late 1990s (see also Day 2010). In this way, contemporary anti-trafficking campaigns can be viewed as an effective, feminist embodiment of neoliberalisms joint carceral and sexual projects, ushering in agendas of family values and crime control while asserting new understandings of gender justice and womens human rights.

Conclusion If the postmaterialist politics tends towards good and evil, crime is a natural metaphor for evil. Theodore Caplow and Jonathan Simon, Crime and Justice (1999, quoted in Gottschalk, 11) This article has sought to synthesize and push forward arguments made by recent social theorists concerning the emergence of the carceral state and its relationship to more general patterns of cultural and political transformation. Drawing upon diverse accounts of the relationship between neoliberalism and the turn towards punitive modes of justice in contemporary social policy, I have highlighted the implicit gendered dimensions of this shift as well as its disparately raced and classed impact, melding theories of carcerality and punishment with insights drawn from my own empirical research on campaigns against sex trafficking. I have sought to show how an understanding of recent transformations within feminism, and within the politics of sex and gender more generally, is critical to the broad-sweeping analyses of the neoliberal carceral state that theorists such as Garland, Wacquant, and Simon have formulated. Via successive encodings of issues such as rape, sexual harassment, pornography, sexual violence, prostitution, and trafficking into federal and now international criminal law, mainstream feminists have provided crucial ideological support for ushering in contemporary carceral transitions (Halley 2006, p. 21). Most recently, the burgeoning discourse of womens human rights has served to re-circuit feminist attention from the domestic spheres of home and nation to an expanding international stage, asserting carceral versions of feminism on a global scale.

Theor Soc

It is important to understand the underlying gendered and sexual dynamics that have inspired this shift in feminist emphasis and strategy. Assumptions such as Garlands, Simons, and Wacquants that late-modern conditions of gender flux have led to a reactive embrace of carceral politics on the part of the once liberal middle classes fail to consider the gendered interests that underpin feminist advocacy on behalf of the neoliberal carceral state. Whereas Garland correctly asserts that late capitalist social transformations have destabilized certain aspects of middle class life and fomented middle class punitiveness, he misidentifies not only the reality of criminal threat but also the gendered and sexual instabilities that are the source of this trend. In contemporary anti-trafficking campaigns, it is not changing gender roles in the abstract but rather reconfigured norms of male sexuality that are perceived as the greatest threat to middle class feminist and evangelical Christian activists, for which both criminal justice and family values are perceived to be the remedies. Although Wacquant astutely demonstrates the correlation between the eclipse of the welfare state and the advent of the penal state (as well as the pivotal symbolic role played by the sex offender in ushering in these transitions) he fails to account for feminists own investment in facilitating this shift. My own ethnographic research in combination with other feminist critiques of sexuality and neoliberalism helps to clarify this allegiance, demonstrating how the intersecting race, class, and gender locations of a prominent contingent of Western feminists have created deep political investments in the contemporary security state and in the middle class family form. Finally, Simon usefully reveals the ways in which the contemporary security state serves not only to police the poor but also to create middle class understandings of securitized freedom, pointing to the important role played by feminism in advancing this project. My research on the contemporary anti-trafficking movement helps to illuminate precisely how and why feminists have reoriented their political aims towards carceral ends, situating ideological transitions in terms of the new political-economic horizons that feminists are confronting. Contemporary feminist commitments to both family values and to a law and order agenda are facilitated by a neoliberal state apparatus in which poor as well as middle class lives are increasingly governed through crime, and in which the privatized family is designated as the optimal institution for social support. Under such circumstances, the impetus to find non-economic means to equalize the dynamics of sexual power within the familysuch as governing through crimebecomes compelling to many feminist (and evangelical Christian) social justice advocates. Rather than pursuing materially redistributive strategies, the versions of feminism that have survived and thrived are those that deploy the mutually reinforcing sexual and carceral strategies that a reconfigured neoliberal state is likely to support.26 Most generally, this article has shown how attention to social actors carceral commitments is pivotal to understanding the politics that have joined together left and right, and feminists and evangelicals, on sexual issuesand vice versa. I have
In the case of anti-trafficking campaigns, such materially oriented strategies would likely include challenges to current international debt and lending policies, global commodity markets, and the economic development policies that create incentives for women to engage in risky migration and exploitative sexual labor in the first place.
26

Theor Soc

used the case study of human trafficking to illuminate how neoliberal sexual politics and carceral politics work together, highlighting the cross-ideological alignments that have occurred around both sex and crime. As theorists such as Garland, Wacquant, and Simon have persuasively argued, in the present historical moment, sex is often the vehicle that joins left and right together around an agenda of criminal justice. My own analysis of contemporary anti-trafficking campaigns has demonstrated how the reciprocal is also true: criminal justice has often been the most effective vehicle for binding feminists and evangelicals together around historically and socially specific ideals of sex, gender, and the family. To fully understand the rise of the carceral state and its relationship to late capitalist social transformations, we need a feminist analytics of neoliberalism that is cognizant of how mutually reinforcing sexual and carceral strategies have come to circulate together.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank Raewyn Connell and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful commentary on an earlier draft of this article. For their feedback, I am also grateful to Kerwin Kaye, Nicki Beisel, Lauren Berlant, Linda Zerilli, and members of the Spring 2011 faculty seminar at the University of Chicago's Center for Gender Studies.

References
Agustn, L. M. (2007). Sex at the margins: migration, labour markets and the rescue industry. London: Zed Books. Ahmad, N. (2005). Trafficked persons or economic migrants? In K. Kempadoo (Ed.), Trafficking and prostitution reconsidered (pp. 211229). Boulder: Paradigm. Anderberg, K. (2004). No more porn nights.. In C. Sark & R. Whisnant (Eds.), Not for sale: Feminists resisting prostitution and pornography (pp. 275277). North Melbourne: Spiniflex. Bales, K. (1999). Disposable people: New slavery in the global economy. California: University of California Press. Barry, K. (1979). Female sexual slavery. New York: New York University Press. Barry, K. (1995). The prostitution of sexuality: The global exploitation of women. New York: New York University Press. Bedford, K. (2009). Developing partnerships: Gender, sexuality, and the reformed World Bank. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. Bernstein, E. (2007a). The sexual politics of new abolitionism. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 18(3), 128151. Bernstein, E. (2007b). Temporarily yours: Intimacy, authenticity, and the commerce of sex. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bernstein, E. (2010). Militarized humanitarianism meets carceral feminism: the politics of sex, rights, and freedom in contemporary anti-trafficking campaigns. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Special Issue on Feminists Theorize International Political Economy, Guest-edited by Kate Bedford and Shirin Rai, 36, 1. Bohrman, R., & Murakawa, N. (2005). Remaking big government: Immigration and crime control in the United States. In J. Sudbury (Ed.), Global lockdown: Race, gender and the prison-industrial complex (pp. 109126). London: Routledge. Brennan, D. (2004). Whats love got to do with it?: Transnational desires and sex tourism in the Dominican Republic. Durham: Duke University Press. Brennan, D. (2008). Competing claims of victimhood? Foreign and domestic victims of trafficking in the United States, sexuality research & social policy. Special Edition: Sexual Commerce and the Global Flows of Bodies, Desires and Social Policies, 5(4), 4561. Brock, D. (1998). Making work, making trouble: Prostitution as a social problem. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Theor Soc Brown, W. (1995). States of injury: Power and freedom in late modernity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bumiller, K. (2008). In an abusive state: How Neoliberalism appropriated the feminist movement against sexual violence. Durham: Duke University Press. Bunch, C. (1972). Lesbians in Revolt. In M. Blasius and S. Phelan (Eds.), We are everywhere: a historical sourcebook of gay and lesbian politics (pp. 420424). New York: Routledge. Buss, D., & Herman, D. (2003). Globalizing family values: The christian right in international politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Campbell, J. L. (2011). Neoliberalisms penal and debtor states. Theoretical Criminology, 14(1), 5973. Chapkis, W. (1997). Live sex acts: Women performing erotic labor. New York: Routledge. Chapkis, W. (2005). Soft glove, punishing fist: The trafficking victims protection act of 2000. In Elizabeth Bernstein and Laurie Schaffner, eds., Regulating Sex: The Politics of Intimacy and Identity. New York: Routledge, pp. 51-67. Cheng, S. (2010). On the move for love. Migrant entertainers and the U.S. Military in South Korea. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Chuang, J. A. (2010). Rescuing Trafficking from Ideological Capture: Anti-Prostitution Reform and Anti-Trafficking Law and Policy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 158, 16551728. Clarke, D. A. (2004). Prostitution for everyone: Feminism, globalisation, and the sex industry. In C. Stark & R. Whisnant (Eds.), Not for Sale: Feminists Resisting Prostitution and Pornography (pp. 149206). North Melbourne: Spiniflex. Coker, D. (2001). Crime law and feminist law reform in domestic violence law. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 4(2), 801860. Davis, A. Y. (2003). Are prisons obsolete? New York: Seven Stories. Davis, A. Y., & Rodriguez, A. (2000). The challenge of prison abolition: a conversation. Social Justice, 27 (3), 212. Davis, A. Y., & Shaylor, C. (2001). Race, gender, and the prison industrial complex California and beyond. Meridians: Feminism, Race, Transnationalism, 2(1), 125. Day, S. (2010). The re-emergence of trafficking: sex work between slavery and freedom. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 16, 816834. Desai, M. (2005). Transnationalism: the face of feminist politics post-Beijing. International Social Science Journal, 57(2), 319330. Doezema, J. (2001). Ouch! Western feminists wounded attachment to the third world prostitute. Feminist Review, 67, 1638. Doezema, J. (2010). Sex slaves and discourse masters: The construction of trafficking. London: Zed Books. Duggan, L. (2003). The twilight of equality? Neoliberalism, cultural politics and the attack on democracy. Boston: Beacon. Duggan, L., & Hunter, N. D. (1995). Sex wars: Sexual dissent and political culture. London: Routledge. Echols, A. (1989). Daring to be bad: Radical feminism in America, 19671975. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Eisenstein, H. (2009). Feminism seduced: How global elites use womens labor and ideas to exploit the world. Boulder: Paradigm. Feeley, M., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449474. Feingold, D. (2005). Think again: human trafficking. Foreign Policy, 150, 2630. Foerster, A. (2009). Contested bodies: sex trafficking NGOs and transnational politics. International Journal of Feminist Politics, 11(2), 151173. Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books. Frank, T. (2005). Whats the matter with Kansas? How conservatives won the heart of America. New York: Holt Paperbacks. Garland, D. (2001a). The culture of control: Crimes and social order in contemporary society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Garland, D. (Ed.). (2001b). Mass imprisonment: Social causes and consequences. London: Sage. Goldstein, J. R., & Kenney, C. T. (2001). Marriage delayed or marriage forgone: new cohort forecasts of first marriage for U.S. women. American Sociological Review, 66(4), 506519. Gordon, L. (1982). Why nineteenth-century feminists did not support birth control and twentieth-century feminists do: Feminism, reproduction and the family. In B. Thorne & M. Yalom (Eds.), Rethinking the family: Some feminist questions. New York: Longman. Gottschalk, M. (2006). The prison and the gallows: The politics of mass incarceration in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Theor Soc Gottschalk, M. (2009). The long reach of the carceral state: the politics of crime, mass imprisonment, and penal reform in the United States and abroad. Law and Social Inquiry, 34(2), 439472. Grewal, I. (2005). Transnational America: Feminisms, Diasporas, Neoliberalisms. Durham: Duke University Press. Grewal, I. (2006). Security moms in the early twenty-first century United States: the gender of security in neoliberalism. Womens Studies Quarterly, 34(1/2), 2539. Gruber, A. (2007). The feminist war on crime. Iowa Law Review, 92, 741775. Halley, J. (2006). Split decisions: How and why to take a break from feminism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Halley, J. (2008a). Rape in Berlin: reconsidering the criminalization of rape in the international law of armed conflict. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 9(1), 78124. Halley, J. (2008b). Rape at Rome. Feminist interventions in the criminalization of sex-related violence in positive international criminal law. Michigan Journal of International Law, 30(1), 1123. Haney, L. (2004). Introduction: gender, welfare, and states of punishment. Social Politics, 11(3), 333362. Haney, L. (2010). Offending women: Power, punishment and the regulation of desire. California: University of California Press. Hertzke, A. (2004). Freeing Gods children: The unlikely alliance for global human rights. Rowman and Littlefield: Lanham. Ho, J. (2005). From anti-trafficking to social discipline: Or, the changing role of womens NGOs in Taiwan. In K. Kempadoo (Ed.), Trafficking and prostitution reconsidered (pp. 83105). Boulder: Paradigm. Hobson, B. (1999). Womens collective agency, power resources and the framing of citizenship rights. In M. Hanagan & C. Tilly (Eds.), Extending citizenship, reconfiguring states (pp. 149178). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Jacobson, M. (2005). Downsizing prisons: How to reduce crime and end mass incarceration. New York: New York University. Jagori (2005). Migration, trafficking, and sites of work. In K. Kempadoo (Ed.), Trafficking and prostitution reconsidered (pp. 159175). Boulder: Paradigm Publishers. Jeffrey, L. A. (2002). Sex and borders: Gender, national identity, and prostitution policy in Thailand. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Kempadoo, K. (Ed.). (2005a). Trafficking and prostitution reconsidered: New perspectives on migration, sex work, and human rights. Colorado: Paradigm. Kempadoo, K. (2005b). Victims and agents of crime: The new crusade against trafficking. In J. Sudbury (Ed.), Global lockdown: Race, gender and the prison-industrial complex (pp. 3555). London: Routledge. Kulick, D. (2003). Sex in the New Europe: the criminalization of clients and the Swedish fear of penetration. Anthropological Theory, 3(2), 199218. Lancaster, R. (2011). Sex panic and the punitive state. Berkeley: University of California Press. Landesman, P. (2004). The girls next door. NY Times Magazine, 25 Jan, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/ 01/25/magazine/the-girls-next-door.html?pagewanted01. Luker, K. (1985). Abortion and the politics of motherhood. California: University of California Press. MacKinnon, C. A. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Boston: Harvard University Press. Madriz, E. (1997). Nothing bad happens to good girls: Fear of crime in womens lives. Berkeley: University of California Press. Manza, J., & Uggen, C. (2006). Locked out: Felon disenfranchisement and American democracy. New York: Oxford University Press. Martin, S. P. (2006). Trends in marital dissolution by womens education in the United States. Demographic Research, 15/20, 537560. May, M. (2006). Sex trafficking: San Francisco is a major center for international crime networks that smuggle and enslave. San Francisco Examiner, Oct. 6, http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-10-06/news/ 17316911_1_trafficking-victims-human-trafficking-new-owners. Mayer, M. (2011). Punishing the poora debate. Theoretical Criminology, 14(1), 93103. Miller, A. (2004). Sexuality, violence against women, and human rights: women make demands and ladies get protection. Health and Human Rights, 7(2), 1648. Montgomery, H. (2001). Modern Babylon: Prostituting children in Thailand. United Kingdom: Berghahn Books. Morgan, R. (Ed.). (1970). Sisterhood is powerful: An anthology of writings from the women's liberation movement. United Kingdom: Vintage Books. Morgan, R. (1973). Lesbianism and Feminism: Synonyms or Contradictions. In M. Blasius and S. Phelan (Eds.), We are everywhere: A historical sourcebook of gay and lesbian politics (pp. 424435). New York: Routledge.

Theor Soc Network of Sex Work Projects (NSWP). (2006). Taking the pledge (Video). http://sexworkerspresent. blip.tv/file/181155/. OConnell Davidson, J. (2003). Sleeping with the enemy? Some problems with feminist abolitionist calls to penalise those who buy commercial sex. Social Policy and Society, 2(1), 19. Petersilia, J. (Ed.). (1998). Community corrections: Probation, parole, and intermediate sanctions. New York: Oxford University Press. Peterson, R. D., Krivo, L. J., & Hagan, J. (2006). The many colors of crime. New York: New York University Press. Pheterson, G. (2008). Tracing a radical feminist vision from the 1970s to the present: Left-Right, North South. Talk presented at Graduate Gender Program (GGeP) of the University of Utrecht, the Netherlands. Powell, M., & Confessore, N. (2008). 4 Arrests, Then 6 Days to a Resignation. New York Times, 13 Mar., http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/nyregion/13recon.html. Razack, S. (1995). Domestic violence as gender persecution: policing the borders of nation, race, and gender. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 8(1), 4588. Rubin, G. (1975). The traffic in women: Notes on the political economy of sex. In R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward an anthropology of women. New York: Monthly Review Press. Saletan, W. (2003). Bearing right: How conservatives won the abortion war. Berkeley: University of California Press. Saunders, P. (2005). Traffic violations: determining the meaning of violence in sexual trafficking versus sex work. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(3), 343360. Schaffner, L. (2005). Girls in trouble with the law. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Sex laws: Unjust and Ineffective. (2009). The Economist, 6 Aug., www.economist.com/node /14164614 Simon, J. (2007). Governing through crime: How the war on crime transformed American democracy and created a culture of fear. New York: Oxford University Press. Soderlund, G. (2005). Running from the rescuers: new U.S. crusades against sex trafficking and the rhetoric of abolition. NWSA Journal, 17(3), 6487. Spivak, G. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271313). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Stein, A. (2002). The stranger next door: The story of a small communitys battle over sex, faith, and civil rights. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon. Sudbury, J. (Ed.). (2005). Global lockdown: Race, gender and the prison-industrial complex. London: Routledge. Sun, C. (2007). The fallacies of phantasies. In D. E. Guinn (Ed.), Pornography: driving the demand in international sex trafficking (pp. 233251). Captive Daughters Media. Thrupkaew, N. (2009). Beyond Rescue. The Nation. 26 Oct. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091026/ thrupkaew. Ticktin, M. (2008). Sexual violence as the language of border control: where French feminist and antiimmigrant rhetoric meet. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 33(4), 863889. Tonry, M. (1995). Malign neglect: Race, crime, and punishment in America. New York: Oxford University Press. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2000). Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. http://www.uncjin.org/Documents/Conventions/dcatoc/ final_documents_2/convention_%20traff_eng.pdf. United States Department of Justice. (2011). Characteristics of Suspected Human Trafficking Incidents, 20082010. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cshti0810.pdf. United States Department of State. (2000). Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106386). http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10492.pdf. United States Department of State. (2005). Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (H.R. 972). http://www.state.gov/g/tip/laws/61106.htm. United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report. (2006). Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed to Enhance U.S. Antitrafficking Efforts Abroad (GAO-06-825). http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071034.pdf Urban Justice Center (2009). The Use of Raids to Fight Trafficking in Persons. http://sexworkersproject. org/downloads/swp-2009-raids-and-trafficking-report.pdf. Vance, C. (Ed.). (1993). Pleasure and danger: Exploring female sexuality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Books.

Theor Soc Vance, C. (1997). Negotiating sex and gender in the attorney generals commission on pornography. In R. N. Lancaster & M. di Leonardo (Eds.), The gender/sexuality reader: Culture, history, political economy (pp. 434440). New York: Routledge. Vance, C. (2010). Thinking trafficking, thinking sex. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 17(1), 135143. Wacquant, L. (2009a). Prisons of poverty. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. Wacquant, L. (2009b). Punishing the poor: The neoliberal government of social insecurity. Durham: Duke University Press. Walkowitz, J. (1982). Prostitution in Victorian society. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Weitzer, R. (2007). The social construction of sex trafficking: ideology and institutionalization of a moral crusade. Politics and Society, 35(3), 447475. Western, B. (2006). Punishment and inequality in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Wood, J. K. (2005). In whose name? Crime victim and the punishing power of protection. NWSA Journal, 17(3), 117. Zimring, F. (2007). The great American crime decline. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Elizabeth Bernstein is Associate Professor of Womens, Gender, & Sexuality Studies and Sociology at Barnard College, Columbia University. She is co-editor of Regulating Sex: the 28 Politics of Intimacy and Identity (New York: Routledge 2005) and the author of Temporarily Yours: Intimacy, Authenticity, and the Commerce of Sex (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007). Her current book project, Brokered Subjects: Sex, Trafficking, and the Politics of Freedom, explores the convergence of feminist, neoliberal, and evangelical Christian interests in the shaping of contemporary policies around trafficking and prostitution.